Jerry Nadler

If that is the only remedy--get into compliance now--order an injunctive action, in effect, to get into compliance now.

We should not enact legislation like H.R. 3356, which seeks to excuse every public accommodation whether large or small, and even when knowingly and deliberately violating the law, from taking any steps to comply with the law until and…

For the ADA to yield its promise of equal access for the disabled, it may indeed be necessary and desirable for committed individuals to bring serial litigation.

The notion that the mere filing of lawsuits alleging noncompliance with the ADA is itself an indicator of bad faith or frivolous litigation should be rejected.

By removing the risk of litigation, H.R. 3356 would send a clear and devastating message to every public accommodation in America that there is no need to comply voluntarily with the ADA.

Pre-suit notification is a virtual get out of jail free card for every public accommodation in America.

We have been here before. Twelve years ago, movie star and California business owner, Clint Eastwood, testified in support of legislation that would require pre-suit notification before a claim could be filed under Title III of the ADA.

I appreciate your holding this hearing today and allowing me to participate, though I am not a member of this committee.

That amendment was rejected in this Committee when Mr. Conyers and I offered it 7 years ago.

I, along with several colleagues, expressed grave concerns and voted against CAFA because of the threat it poses to meaningful vindication of State-based rights.

Far from reducing frivolous, time-consuming, and expensive litigation, CAFA appears to have encouraged such litigation.

Never mind the many State class actions have uncovered significant corporate wrongdoing, vindicated protections provided under State law, and compensated victims.

At the start of the 109th Congress 7 years ago, Republican leadership made the Class Action Fairness Act one of their top legislative priorities.

Are you aware of the research published in the Journal of the American Association and the conclusions of the Royal Academy of Obstetricians and Gynecologists among others?

Then you are saying that those are minority views, and they are clearly wrong.

As to when pain is felt.

The idea that you cannot have a conversation with your doctor who knows you... suddenly becomes criminal, to me, is just beyond belief.

If this bill had been law when you had to face your ordeal, your doctor would have had to risk jail and a lawsuit to provide you with the medical services that you required.

It is wrong to impose a choice on us when legislation affects a specific district.

That is just wrong. We hear a lot of rhetoric about freedom, but here we are telling women they have no freedom to make their own decisions.

And we have no authority to ban abortion without a health exception, not just the life exception for the mother, which this bill does.

The bill is facially unconstitutional.

Are we really going to take sides in this scientific debate by jailing and bankrupting people who don't agree, or actually agree with the majority of the scientific community?

Never in my 20 years as a Member of this body have I seen a colleague treated so contemptuously.

Just because we have the power to impose our will on people who have no voice does not make it right or moral.