I feel like I am in a time wrap today. We already voted on and debated basically the same bill last year. We must be close to an election if this Republican Congress is bringing up an anti-choice piece of legislation that they have already passed. While these types of bills may make good politics for some, they make bad policy for all. We should all be in agreement on the need to lower the numbers of unintended pregnancies and abortions in the U.S. While this bill purports to put the interests of minors and their parents first, as well as reduce the number of abortions--the facts over the last few years of the Bush Administration have demonstrated that the numbers of abortions increased from the numbers during the previous 8 years of policymaking under President Bill Clinton. In fact, studies show the abortion rate, which hit a 24-year low when President Bush took office, and has risen throughout President Bush's first term of so-called anti-abortion policymaking. Instead of focusing on this fact, addressing why hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on abstinence only programs with little result, and pushing programs to expand contraception, this majority wants to criminalize aunts and cousins. It just doesn't make any sense. Fortunately, there are laudable programs that work with young people to help ensure that they get accurate and relevant information on how to protect themselves from pregnancy.
Joe Crowley: “I feel like I am in a time wrap today. We already voted on and debated basically the same bill last year. We must be…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of anti-choice legislation during a floor debate.
Share
More from Joe Crowley
Is this motion privileged? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has offered a motion to table the question of privilege.
One more further parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York will state his parliamentary inquiry.
On July 19, 2018, I was absent for recorded votes No. 363 and No. 364. I would have voted as follows if I had been present: On rollcall No. 363, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 364, I would have voted ``yes.'' The SPEAKER pro…
I am asking on the underlying resolution before you, is it a privileged resolution? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announced that the resolution qualified as privileged.





