Jerry Nadler: “we have alluded repeatedly in this debate to the reasons why this bill is oppressive and is wrong, and we have alluded…”

“we have alluded repeatedly in this debate to the reasons why this bill is oppressive and is wrong, and we have alluded to the fact that it is unconstitutional, but we have not really gone into that. The fact is that under the rulings of the Supreme Court, it is not permissible to pass a law which has the effect of imposing one State's legal requirements on another State, as this bill does. In essence, the bill imposes on States and physicians the laws of the States that have the most stringent requirements on abortion. Federalism dictates that one has the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in another State, according to the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment. In the Saenz case in 1999, the Supreme Court held that a State cannot discriminate against a citizen of another State when there is no substantial reason for the discrimination, except for the fact that they are a citizen of another State. The court specifically referred to Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, where it said the State cannot limit access to its medical care facilities for abortions to in-State residents. A State must treat all that are seeking medical care within that State in an equal manner. This bill would, in effect, say that there are two legal regimes in a State.…”