Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, voiced his strong opposition to H.R. 2299, a draconian Republican bill designed to limit minors’ access to reproductive care, even in the event of rape, incest, or medical emergencies.

“As a matter of policy, this bill would place many young women in an impossible situation,” said Nadler.  “In some cases, the young woman may not be able to go to her parents, and can turn only to a grandparent, a sibling, or a member of the clergy.  Indeed, sometimes, the parents may pose a threat to the life and health of the young woman….This bill would substitute the judgment of Congress for the judgment of people who live in states like mine.  In fact, even where the young woman’s state of residence, and the state in which the doctor is located, have both decided not to enact such laws, this bill would impose a new federal parental notification law that is more draconian, and more unconstitutional, than the laws of most states.”

Below is the text of Nadler’s opening statement, as prepared:

“Today we consider legislation that is, at once, another flagrant violation of the Constitution, and an assault on the health and well-being of young women and their health care providers.

“Before we start discussing this legislation, versions of which we have considered in the 105th, 106th, 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses, I think it is important to note that this is the ninth time this Committee has met in this Congress to assault the reproductive rights of women.

“The 112th Congress has had just over 200 legislative days so far.  If the Republican leadership had put as much effort into helping distressed homeowners, or creating jobs, or reforming our immigration laws as they have into the war on women, most of our problems might have been solved by now.

“Instead, we get this warmed over, and facially unconstitutional legislation yet again.

“Some states have chosen to enact parental notification or consent laws.  Some, like mine, have considered this issue and decided it is not good for the welfare of young women and have declined to do so.

“This bill would substitute the judgment of Congress for the judgment of people who live in states like mine.  In fact, even where the young woman’s state of residence, and the state in which the doctor is located, have both decided not to enact such laws, this bill would impose a new federal parental notification law that is more draconian, and more unconstitutional, than the laws of most states.

“Perhaps we should just disband our state legislatures and let Washington decide these important family issues for us.  If it would spare the rest of us endless speeches about federalism and states’ rights, I might be tempted to go along with it.

“I would just note in this regard, that many members of this Committee recently voted to allow the laws of some states to preempt the concealed carry firearms laws in others – including mine.  Congress would – in effect – allow any state to nullify our laws and require us to allow any lunatic to walk our streets with a concealed weapon if so much as one other state says they can.

“As a matter of policy, this bill would place many young women in an impossible situation.  In some cases, the young woman may not be able to go to her parents, and can turn only to a grandparent, a sibling, or a member of the clergy.  Indeed, sometimes, the parents may pose a threat to the life and health of the young woman.  That’s what happened to Spring Adams, a 13 year old from Idaho.  She was shot to death by her father after he found out that she planned to terminate a pregnancy – one he caused by his acts of incest.  I would commend the authors of the bill for not allowing him to sue in this new version of the bill.  It’s a step in the right direction, albeit a tiny step.

“This bill also uses a narrow definition of medical emergency that applies only where an ‘abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor because her life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.’

“That clearly falls far short of the Supreme Court’s requirement that any restriction on the right to choose must have an explicit exception to protect the life or health of the woman.  There are many things far short of death that threaten a young woman.  She deserves prompt and professional medical care, and the Constitution still protects her right to receive that care.  Requiring that young women have their health destroyed is beyond cruel.  It is anything but ‘pro-life.’

“I know that I have rankled some of my colleagues in the past by comparing this to the fugitive slave law, and I would never suggest that this bill turns young women into slaves – so don’t say that I did.  I won’t even presume to know what Frederick Douglass might think of this bill.

“But by requiring a young woman, or any American, to carry the laws of their states on their backs as they travel around the country is inimical to our federal system.  We have a few laws in New York that I think might benefit the people of some other states, but I’m not sure the proponents of this legislation would particularly like it.

“Congress should not be tempted to play doctor.  It is always bad medicine for women.  This unconstitutional and ill-considered legislation will harm young women.

“In an ideal world, loving, supportive, and understanding families would join together to face these challenges.  That’s what happens in the majority of cases, law or no law.

“But we do not live in a perfect world.  Some parents are violent.  Some parents are rapists.  Some young people can turn only to their clergy, to a grandparent, a sibling, or some other trusted adult.  We should not turn these people into criminals simply because they are trying to help a young woman in a dire situation.

“This bill is the wrong way to deal with a very real problem.  It does not provide exceptions to protect a young woman’s health.  It does not provide exceptions where a parent has raped a young woman.  It even allows the rapist to sue a clergy person or doctor who tries to help the daughter deal with the effects of that crime.

“I will urge my colleagues to reject this legislation on both constitutional and policy grounds.  If only for the sake of humanity, I would urge you to join in providing the needed flexibility for the most difficult real world cases involving the lives of real young women.  We owe them at least that much.”

###