Dan Kildee: “I thank my colleague for yielding. Let me first say something about the process that we are engaged in. We have heard…”

“I thank my colleague for yielding. Let me first say something about the process that we are engaged in. We have heard just in the last few weeks--and even as we opened this Congress--the Speaker and others in the majority talk about how we will adhere to regular order and we will get back to the process of legislating the way it was intended to be conducted. What happened to that? Why did we set that aside? What is the emergency that requires us to bring this highly ideological piece of legislation to the floor in just a few hours after it had been brought to the Rules Committee? What happened to the previous legislation that we were supposed to debate? I mean, to me, this is a big problem, and it is one that I think begs the question of whether or not those offers of returning to the regular legislative process are sincere. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule for that reason, but also because this is yet just another ideological attack on the health care rights of women in this country who want--in some cases, we know that abortion services are already prohibited from being funded through Federal sources. This is simply going so far as to say that women, with their own money, who seek to procure insurance coverage, can't seek that coverage if it includes these services. To me, it goes just far too far. It does not allow even exceptions for abortions that would be required to protect the health of the woman or serious medical concerns.…”